Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 1253

Thread: The Internet

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Family Friendly Mascot Buffalobiian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Amaburi
    Age
    35
    Posts
    18,957
    edit: Animeniax: I am addressing your concerns about sig appropriateness in another thread. (Click here to be redirected.)

    ----------

    Instead of writing a messy, multi-quote rebuttal I'll try to keep this short and to the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Animeniax
    Yes but what is a crime? It is an act that is statutorily defined as being against the law because it violates our sense of morality and justice. That doesn't give enough weight to the moral and societal wrongness of an act, just in some cases it's clearly defined as wrong, either through obviousness (murder, rape, theft) or through historical evidence of its negative influence on society.
    The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has a few things most Western countries agree that each individual human is entitled to simply for existing and being a human being. It is largely put in place to prevent oppression of individuals and groups - even minorities.

    Amongst those things are Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Opinion. To prosecute someone for having thoughts about child sex violates these rights.

    Article #9 states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

    That said, the rights of one individual will at times conflict with those of another. [Example: Freedom of Speech (threats) vs Freedom from Fear (to not feel threatenned).]

    So what justification does the law have to prosecute, punish or even execute individuals? What makes a reason arbitrary and what makes it justifiable?

    Do not dismiss the crimes: murder, rape and theft as "obvious" without thinking. They are crimes because such acts cause significant, proven harm to victims.

    Other acts are criminalised because the risk for harm has been established. Smoking restrictions and speed limits are such examples.

    Let's remember that our original discussion was not even about outlawing paedophilia itself, but banning the sale of loli-sex dolls. My interpretation of your quote below, Animaniax, is that neither has the harm been quantified nor has the causation been established.

    Quote Originally Posted by Animeniax
    The problem is the difficulty in quantifying/qualifying the harm done while trying to establish causation.
    Paedophilia and such topics cause a knee-jerk reaction within the general public because everyone gets touchy once child safety is involved and the vast majority have no interest in the rights of paedophiles. Do not forget that they too are humans. Don't oppress them without a good reason.
    Last edited by Buffalobiian; Wed, 04-29-2015 at 05:12 AM.

    If it's not Isuzu-chan Mii~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •